"Machine guns in British Shermans." Topic

This is not my era, but I am interested in just what changes the British might have made when they received M4 Shermans from the US. The Cromwell has besa (British) machine guns, but the Shermans would arrive with .30 calibrt US light machine guns in the assistant driver/radio operator position in the bow; and co-axial with the main gun – 75mm mediu velocity; 76mm; or 17 pounder (when converted).

Did they add the besa to the Shermans after pulling out the .30 caliber Brownings?

GdeP

My understanding is that British Shermans retained the .30 calibre machine guns, but didn't have a .50 calibre mounted on the cupola. The 17-pr Firefly didn't have a bow machine gun.

They kept the .30 cal brownings just as they received them.
The fifty was pretty much left off.
They stayed in .30-06 calibre.

The Browning was also produced by the thousands, in .303 British, the rimmed round, but was near exclusively used by the Royal Air Force as aircraft guns.

The Besa guns were British produced copies of the Czeck ZB37 still chambered in 8mm Mauser. Quite reliable but used strictly in UK built tanks as bow and coax.

There is an example or two where the UK replaced the Besa with a .30-06 Browning, such as the conversions of the Churchill NA75s. Here the entire gun mantlet of the Sherman was fitted to the front of Churchill turrets, complete with Browning coax. Maybe someone else can figure out if they kept the Besa or switched tit to a Browning for the bow gun?

Also the Canadian produced Valentine tanks had the .30-06 Browning as built the whole time. Mind out of 1,420 built all but thirty were given to the USR as lend lease.

According to David Doyle in "The Churchill Tank: A visual history of the British Army's Heavy Tank 1941-1945 Part One: The gun tank, Mk I-VIII "Browning 30-caliber machine guns were substituted for the Besas in the coaxial and bow positions."

Also there are pictures of Commonwealth Shermans with a 30 cal mounted on the cupola in place of the 50.

While reviewing the Concord Armor at War Series #7062 "British Sherman Tanks" by Dennis Oliver I was surprised but just how many British Shermans DID have the 50 cal.

My thanks to you all! Must have been a really complicated supply problem!

GdeP

One change the British did make was they swapped out the US radios for the British Wireless Set 19 and had the intercom system replaced as well. Interestingly enough it appears these sets were produced in the US by RCA and installed in tanks destined for Commonwealth lend-lease.

And they had electric hot plates installed for brewing tea.

Quite a shopping list for an RAC Regiment, even down the small arms ammunition aisle -

.38-in for pistols
9-mm for Stens, or
.45-cal for Thompsons (if held instead of Stens)
.303-in for rifles and Brens
.30-cal for Brownings
7.92-mm for Besas
.50-cal for Brownings (if unit had them)

And that's before you get to the main armament aisle, only to realise you've forgot grenades…

Gary

And slapping the forehead when you forgot to stock up on the 2" smoke mortar rounds as well.

I'd never realised Besas didn't use .303. You learn something new every day.

Garde de Paris,,,actually from a supply side it was less complicated than you think. The supply echelon of a British or commonwealth armoured squadron alone has about twenty trucks for the squadrons twenty odd tanks. The fule and the main ammo are some of the big bulk items.

When it comes to coaxial and bow machine gun ammo, that is small in terms of how much space it takes up in a three or five ton truck. It also helps that most all tanks in the sqaudron, regiment and brigade tended to be the same types.

Even today when a modern infantry company gets teamed up with a tank squadron, the infantry company support trucks are only one or two. They usually just get told to get in line with the tank sqaudrons supply trucks and to, 'follow this truck'.

When you pass the position of tank commander,,, the importance of the 'A' and 'B' echelon start getting significant.

I am not an armour 'pundit', SO DO NOT TAKE THIS AS GEN! but MY 'take' on British .50cals.

There are several 'illustrations' of British Shermans with pintle .50s. I haven't seen photos… but the illustrations must (?) have been done from some. However, just because a particular vehicle mounted one, it does not necessarily mean that ALL a units tanks did.

Maybe someone would like to trawl through Regimental Diaries / orders / recollections… and write a book!

I think that the pintle mount .50 was meant for AA defence and as allied air superiority became more assured, some units unshipped them as an encumbrance. Were they still carried as stowage? Don't know. I would have thought that they would have been retained… even as stores on 'B echelon' trucks… and maybe set up if a unit was going into temporary 'rest' for a day or two?

However, I have read, somewhere, that an infantry unit, realising that a Sherman unit did not want its .50s, grabbed them to fit on their Bren Carriers. Are there pics of this? I am curious about how they were mounted?

Replacing a .50 with a .30 would make sense, given the tactic of 'hosing' possible 'lurking places'… if the commander could do so from his hatch. But would this not involve modifications and supply of .30s? Considering the 'turnover' of Brit Shermans, I think that it may have been rare.

As to why most US Shermans mounted .50s but many Brits did not… was there a doctrine / Orders difference?

I say again, I don't know… but would welcome knowledge by those who do!

The Concord publication I cite above has a relatively large number of pictures of British Shermans sporting 50 cal. One thing you have to be careful with is just because a photo doesnt show a 50 doesnt mean the tank didnt have one. They could be dismounted and stored on the rear of the turret for example, or other places as well.

Some of the old members of the forum had seemingly encyclopaedic knowledge on which British Armd Regts did have .50-cals on their Sherman tanks. I think over the June-July 1944 period there were a total of 18 British Armd Regts with the 75-mm gun armed Sherman as their main tank, so there was a lot of room for variation. I don't know if the decision to remove or retain .50s was taken at a unit or a formation level, I would tend to think it was left to unit discretion though.

There's the often quoted passage (perhaps what HH is thinking of above?) from "G Company" by Noel Bell (an officer with G Coy of 8th Bn Rifle Brigade), which recalls "It was now 23rd June and we had been ten days in France. That day we acquired many .50 Brownings, from the 3rd RTR, who found them superfluous on their Shermans. We mounted them on our trucks and carriers, and even our scout car".

So we can identify at least one Armd Regt that threw their .50s overboard very early on, and at least one Motor Coy that gave some of them a home. As mentioned the problem with photos, especially if they show only one vehicle, is that they may not reflect practice in the wider unit, and at any rate are a snapshot of a day, and things may have altered over the course of a campaign.

It's a favourite bugbear of mine, the opinion that Universal carriers were 'frequently', or 'mostly' or some similar superlative, uparmed with the addition of .50 and/or .30-cal Brownings acquired from somewhere, but I don't know how to prove or disprove the notion. And it sits alongside the opinion that 'most' units quickly dispensed with their Carrier Platoons at the first opportunity anyway. Anyway, different topic.

There doesn't seem to be much on the Canadian view and practice in their use of the .50-cal on the Sherman tank. Very late war (April 1945) there is some wirrten directive that Cdn carriers in Motor Bns and Recce Regts would be fitted with a mix of .30 and .50-cal Brownings, which is a bit late in events but may have simply been a reflection of unit practice anyway.

Gary

Piggy-backing on Gary's last post …

I have a specific and illogical fixation on G Coy/8RB and 3RTR and their adventures in NW Europe in 1944. I am well aware of Noel Bell anecdote about the Tankies' surplus .50 cals.

BUT, try as I might, I haven't yet turned up pictures of any 8RB half-tracks or Carriers with buckshee 50 cals mounted. There is a website dedicated to this famous Bn of 11th Armoured Div, supplemented by a Facebook page. I've downloaded stacks of excellent pics as modelling reference, but none show this customised accessory. (I did find some photographic evidence of Scout Pln Carriers with .30 cal Brownings added to the forward compartment).

Does anyone on this forum hold this evidence?

Whilst not an expert, I did read during the conversion process of fitting the Sherman gun and mantlet into the Churchill NA75 it was decided to replace the hull MG with another Browning instead of the Besa just for ease of supply.

link

link

There are a number of photos of carriers with the .50 fitted and they can be seen as early as June 13th in the wreckage lining the road out of Villers Bocage.

Thanks, Michael. I appreciate your helpfulness, and I know the Villers-B pictures you mean.

But I am looking for photographic evidence from 8th RB rather than 1st (even if their weapons mountings must have been much the same).

Not sure whether Alvalister's link was directed at me; unfortunately it wouldn't open for me.

I presume you have to be on facebook to access the links above (which is too heavy a price to pay…).

Gary

Gary, that is actually my position. I'm resisting the rush to share private details with Mr Zuckerberg and who knows who else.

IWM B5185 link

Thanks again, Michael – although I'm still really chasing 8RB.

Nice picture, though. Proper Yeomanry type at the front, wearing (I think) camel cords, 8th Army-style. NW Europe is my campaign, but N.Africa and the Med get the fashion points.

I presume you have to be on facebook to access the links above

No. Still does not work

Is that carrier in the IWM photo the lesser-spotted 'carrier, tracked, starting and charging'? It looks to have two pairs of wheel rather than the three of the Universal carrier. If so it would make more sense for an Armoured Regiment, which units gave up their Universal carriers when the Recce Troop converted to light tanks.

Gary

Check number 34.

link

22 CAR. Canadian Grenadier Guards 4 CAB, 4 CAD. August 1944

As to why most US Shermans mounted .50s but many Brits did not… was there a doctrine / Orders difference?

I may be a bit late to the show, but since I came to think of this topic a bit recently, I would like to add a few comments.

I am not sure what the exact design doctrine was, but if you look at the US vehicle designs, it seems that almost every armoured vehicle (tank, halftrack, armoured car, tank destroyer, self-propelled gun) mounts at least one AAMG (either .30 or .50 cal Browning, belt-fed and air-cooled). By quick counting, a US armoured division had over 500 AAMGs mounted on its armoured vehicles. And it does not stop here, as many jeeps and trucks (even ones intended for rear-echelon duty) could be issued with .30 or .50 call MG for self-defense. On the other hand, any heavier anti-aircraft armament (towed or self-propelled) was issued to separate AA battalions.

Brits seem to have had a more reserved approach to AAMGs, though there were clearly provisions made for the use of Bren gun in such a role, including a large capacity snail drum, tripod mount that could be extended into AA-mount, vehicle mounts (including one for carriers) and eventually a dual AA-mount for that extra dakka! But these seem to have been issued in limited numbers, though the early infantry battalion TOE had an AA platoon with four Bren AA-mounts (initially single gun, later dual gun), eliminated with the 1943 reforms. On the other hand, British divisions tended to be provided with a RA AA-regiment with a lot of 40 mm Bofors guns for more specialised air defense, while the field artillery regiments could be provided with their own 20 mm AA-guns for defense.

As for air defense for armoured units, instead of AAMGs the British approach by mid-war seems to have been to provide instead dedicated AA-tanks. A troop of 5-6 such tanks, built on Crusader chassis and armed with 20 or 40 mm AA-guns, was assigned to each armoured regiment HQ. Armoured car regiments could have a similar sized troop of Staghounds with AA-turrets, mounting two .50 cal MGs.

Benefit of the British approach would be that the regular tank crews would be able to concentrate on engaging actual ground targets, instead of being distracted by the need to attend to air defense, while the dedicated AA-tanks with their specialised crews, fire control assets and bigger guns would be significantly more effective in actual AA-fire. On the other hand, if the enemy concentrated on the AA-tanks the regiment could be rendered defenseless after a while. And if the Luftwaffe would unsportingly fail to engage ground targets (as happened in summer 1944), the specialised AA-tanks would be of limited utility.